HYDERABAD: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has strongly opposed the plea filed by Gali Janardhan Reddy, MLA and accused no. 2 in the high-profile Obulapuram Mining Case, seeking suspension of his conviction.
In a detailed counter filed before the High Court, the CBI urged dismissal of the criminal appeal and accompanying interlocutory application, arguing that Reddy had failed to establish any exceptional grounds warranting such relief.
Reddy was convicted by the trial court under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, with all sentences running concurrently.
The trial court had categorically held that the prosecution had proved the charges eyond reasonable doubt, backed by substantial evidence, including witness testimonies and documentary records.
The CBI emphasised that Reddy is also facing trial in several similar criminal cases in the state of Karnataka.
The agency further pointed out that in his present plea, Reddy had not cited a single mitigating factor to support his case for suspension of conviction.
Notably, the appeal merely contains a one-line statement alleging harm if the conviction is not stayed - without any supporting affidavit or specific details.
“In the absence of demonstrated exceptional circumstances, the case does not qualify for suspension of conviction,” the CBI submitted.
“The petitioner has failed to show any irreversible consequences to his constituency or provide any detailed disclosure that justifies such relief.”
Quoting Supreme Court precedent, including the three-judge bench ruling in Ashish Shelar vs State of Maharashtra, the CBI argued that the right to represent a constituency is not an absolute or fundamental right.
The court in that case had held that the electorate has no vested right to be represented by a disqualified or expelled member, affirming the supremacy of statutory provisions over political convenience.
The CBI termed Reddy’s plea a “bizarre attempt” to use his electorate as a shield to maintain his legislative position, despite being convicted in a case that involved significant financial loss to the government.
The agency added that the mere status of the petitioner as an MLA does not warrant special treatment, specially when the legal burden of proof had already been established in court.
In conclusion, the CBI contended that allowing the petitioner to escape the consequences of conviction on the basis of vague assertions would set a dangerous precedent.
“This petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner has neither established exceptional hardship nor demonstrated any compelling public interest that could override the judgment of the Trial Court,” the CBI asserted.